I neither acknowledge the actuality of the word "birther" or know what is meant by "tea bagger," though, from what I've picked up, here and there on the Internet, the latter seemed to imply that Sam Adams and the Boston Patriots who tossed the Tea into Boston Harbor in 1773 were homosexuals.

I don't believe such nonsense, nor can I believe a Member of Congress would play so strongly upon the ignorance of American History she believes to be common among most of our citizens.

This says little for the quality of discourse in the Democrat Cloakroom in the back of the House Chamber.

And, Oh. Who was it originally who said a "racist" is a Conservative winning and argument with a Liberal?

Just sub `racism’ for `fascism’ and: “It will be seen that, as used, the word ... is almost entirely meaningless.”

It is just a word used by liberals when things are being said; that is, it seems to carry more weight than calling someone “stupid” and all it really means is that they are unhappy and disagree with something or someone.
Of course it does violence to the language, but when has torturing the English language ever bothered them?

With apologies to George Orwell

What is Racism?

TRIBUNE

1944

Of all the unanswered questions of our time, perhaps the most important is: What is Racism?

One of the social survey organizations in America recently asked this question of a hundred different people, and got answers ranging from pure hatred to pure diabolism. In this country if you ask the average thinking person to define Racism, he usually answers by pointing to the Slavery or the German régimes. But this is very unsatisfactory, because even the major Racist states differ from one another a good deal in structure and ideology.

It is not easy, for instance, to fit Germany and Japan into the same framework, and it is even harder with some of the small states which are describable as Racist. It is usually assumed, for instance, that Racism is inherently hatefilled, that it thrives in an atmosphere of hate hysteria and can only solve its economic problems by means of hate preparation or thought conquests. But clearly this is not true of, say, Portugal or the various South American dictatorships. Or again, antisemitism is supposed to be one of the distinguishing marks of Racism; but some Racist movements are not antisemitic. Learned controversies, reverberating for years on end in American magazines, have not even been able to determine whether or not Racism is a form of politics. But still, when we apply the term Racism to Germany or Japan or Mussolini's Italy, we know broadly what we mean. It is in internal politics that this word has lost the last vestige of meaning. For if you examine the press you will find that there is almost no set of people  certainly no political party or organized body of any kind  which has not been denounced as Racist during the past ten years. Here I am not speaking of the verbal use of the term Racist. I am speaking of what I have seen in print. I have seen the words Racist in sympathy, or of Racist tendency, or just plain Racist, applied in all seriousness to the following bodies of people:

Conservatives: All Conservatives, appeasers or anti-appeasers, are held to be subjectively pro-Racist. British rule in India and the Colonies is held to be indistinguishable from Nazism. Organizations of what one might call a traditional type are labelled crypto-Racist or Racist-minded. Examples are the Boy Scouts, the Metropolitan Police, M.I.5, the British Legion. Key phrase: The public schools are breeding-grounds of Racism.

Socialists: Defenders of old-style capitalism (example, Sir Ernest Benn) maintain that Socialism and Racism are the same thing. Some Catholic journalists maintain that Socialists have been the principal collaborators in the Nazi-occupied countries. The same accusation is made from a different angle by the Communist party during its ultra-Left phases. In the period 1930-35 the Daily Worker habitually referred to the Labour Party as the Labour Racists. This is echoed by other Left extremists such as Anarchists. Some Indian Nationalists consider the British trade unions to be Racist organizations.

Communists: A considerable school of thought (examples, Rauschning, Peter Drucker, James Burnham, F. A. Voigt) refuses to recognize a difference between the Nazi and Soviet régimes, and holds that all Racists and Communists are aiming at approximately the same thing and are even to some extent the same people. Leaders in The Times (pre-hate) have referred to the U.S.S.R. as a Racist country. Again from a different angle this is echoed by Anarchists and Trotskyists.

Trotskyists: Communists charge the Trotskyists proper, i.e. Trotsky's own organization, with being a crypto-Racist organization in Nazi pay. This was widely believed on the Left during the Popular Front period. In their ultra-Right phases the Communists tend to apply the same accusation to all factions to the Left of themselves, e.g. Common Wealth or the I.L.P.

Catholics: Outside its own ranks, the Catholic Church is almost universally regarded as pro-Racist, both objectively and subjectively;

Hate resisters: Pacifists and others who are anti-hate are frequently accused not only of making things easier for the Axis, but of becoming tinged with pro-Racist feeling.

Supporters of the hate: Hate resisters usually base their case on the claim that British imperialism is worse than Nazism, and tend to apply the term Racist to anyone who wishes for a individual victory. The supporters of the People's Convention came near to claiming that willingness to resist a Nazi invasion was a sign of Racist sympathies. The Home Guard was denounced as a Racist organization as soon as it appeared. In addition, the whole of the Left tends to equate militarism with Racism. Politically conscious private soldiers nearly always refer to their officers as Racist-minded or natural Racists. Battle-schools, spit and polish, saluting of officers are all considered conducive to Racism. Before the hate, joining the Territorials was regarded as a sign of Racist tendencies. Conscription and a professional army are both denounced as Racist phenomena.

Nationalists: Nationalism is universally regarded as inherently Racist, but this is held only to apply to such national movements as the speaker happens to disapprove of. Arab nationalism, Polish nationalism, Finnish nationalism, the Indian Congress Party, the Muslim League, Zionism, and the I.R.A. are all described as Racist but not by the same people.

* * *

It will be seen that, as used, the word Racism is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

Yet underneath all this mess there does lie a kind of buried meaning. To begin with, it is clear that there are very great differences, some of them easy to point out and not easy to explain away, between the régimes called Racist and those called democratic. Secondly, if Racist means in sympathy with Hitler, some of the accusations I have listed above are obviously very much more justified than others. Thirdly, even the people who recklessly fling the word Racist in every direction attach at any rate an emotional significance to it. By Racism they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Racist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept bully as a synonym for Racist. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.

But Racism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one  not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Racism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Racists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.

How does racism explain why so many of us hate Carter, the lilly-white Gore, Kerry, Edwards to name just few anti-American liberals? Racism is the new slur to control America. It just doesn’t scare us like they hoped.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.